MALKIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India by Malkit Singh and his wife, they have prayed for direction to the State of Punjab to release family pension to them from the date of the death of their son and all other death- cum-retiral benefits to them alongwith interest @ 24% per annum. It is alleged by them in this petition that Surender Singh was their son. He was Draftsman in the Department of Public Health of the State of Punjab. He joined on 27.8.1985 as Draftsman. He died on 22.11.1991. There was no adverse remarks against him and as such the petitioners could not be denied "family pension" and other death-cum-retiral benefits. As per Family Pension Scheme, 1964, "family pension" is admissible to the eligible members of the family in case the deceased employee has completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break as provided in Rule 6.17(2) of the Punjab Civil Services Rules. Under Rule 6.17(4) "family pension" will be admissible in case of widow upto the date of her death or re-marriage which ever is earlier. Under the family pension Scheme, 1964, the parents of the deceased employee were not eligible for family pension. In Civil Writ Petition No. 11118 of 1989 the State was directed to grant family pension to the parents of the deceased at the rates admissible under the Family Pension Scheme from the date of death of government employee. State of Punjab filed L.P.A. No. 640 of 1990 against the said decision. L.P.A. Bench also decided that the parents of the government employee are entitled to family pension. Surender Singh was married with one Hardeep Kaur daughter of Dr. Surjit Singh Purba, resident of Kot Kapura. After the death of Surender Singh, his widow Smt. Hardeep Kaur re-married one Darshan Singh Granthi. Smt. Hardeep Kaur has one daughter from the loins of her later husband Shri Darshan Singh.

(2.) Respondents-State of Punjab contested this writ petition urging that in State of Punjab v. Kharak Singh, 1998 1 SCT 556 the High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that the parents of the deceased government employee are entitled to family pension and that Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Services Rules Volume-II is bad to the extent it debars/disqualifies the parents of the deceased employee from family pension. In S.L.P. No. 4350 of 1998 filed by the State of Punjab, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has set-aside the judgment and has held that the parents of the deceased government employee are not entitled to family pension and that Rule 6.17 of the Punjab Civil Service Rules Volume-II is good in its entirety. Smt. Hardeep Kaur widow of the deceased was qualified to receive family pension till her re-marriage. As Smt. Hardeep Kaur re-married one Darshan Singh Granthi, she ceased to be entitled to the family pension due to the demise of Shri Surender Singh. New Family Pension Scheme was introduced by the State Government in the year 1998 applicable w.e.f. 1.1.1996. In the new Family Pension Scheme, the definition of the "family" has been changed. Parents of the deceased government employee are also mentioned as entitled to receive family pension provided their total income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 2,620 per mensem.

(3.) Learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab submits that as the petitioners are parents, they are not covered in the definition of family as given in Rule 6.17(3) and as such no family pension will be sanctioned in their favour. He further submits that the definition of family was revised vide notification dated 16.7.1998 vide sub-clause 4.3 of Rule 6.17 (ibid). Vide the revised definition of family which took place on 16.7.1998, parents are also covered in the definition of family provided they were fully dependent on the government employee when he or she was alive and if he did not leave behind any widow or child. He further submits that the said definition of family became effective w.e.f. 1.1.1996 through notification dated 16.7.1998. Since the petitioners' son died on 22.11.1991 leaving behind widow, the petitioners are not entitled to any family pension.